I agree with your lesson. What if you’re really short? Pulling your pants up will shorten your torso and make you look like Ed Grimly. I think it really depends on your height and size. Just a thought Sart.

Interesting topic. The exact position of the waist is, for many men, rather fluid. I think that selecting the appropriate rise for men’s trousers is more a matter of body proportion. The most suitable rise is that which presents the torso and legs in best proportion to one another. IMHO, Gentleman #1 got it right (proportional) and Gentleman #2 did not (legs appear overly elongated and torso appears shortened, especially with the rather absurdly short tie length).

I completely agree with you. It does seem much easier for the slimmer men, though, to get this concept. When some men get a bit of a potbelly the pants go below the stomach and then comes the saggy rear look. Even if you’re a larger man, the “Fred Mertz” style is better than the barely staying on look! Do these guys mentally need to hang on to the thought that they can still wear a 34″ belt, no matter where that belt might be?

I agree with anonymous — the first guy did it right, the second guy didn’t. To make matters worse, his pants are too short. The hair makes him look like a hipster who is thinking “I’m too cool for school, so I’m going to dress like a tool”

Hip-hugging trouserss on men is a plague. I’m glad you bring this up. There are many reasons to wear one’s trousers on the natural waist.

1) Comfort, especially when pleated and worn with braces.2) Drape, higher-waisted trousers hang better…again, especially when worn with braces.3) They provide slimming and heightening illusions on some men, since the legs appear longer and your belly isn’t hanging out.4) Of course, it also insures that one’s shirt will not show beneath the buttoning point on one’s coat

That said, I don’t believe the first gentleman’s trousers are being worn at his natural waist, but rather a few inches below. But the proportion is about right. Of course, this would matter a lot less if they just kept their jackets on!

I think the “pants on hips” thing is a very recent idea. Pants from the 30′s 40′s 50′s and 60′s all had high rises, some even 12in rises, and pants were ment to be worn around the waist. Even if a man had a gut, the pants were worn OVER the gut. This is why those familiar with older vintage suits are not surprised to find size 38 jackets with size 36 pants. People who think that higher pants are some sort of “new” development are ill informed. as are people who think it is “incorrect.”

anonymous @ 10:17, this is a topic that has come up before, and I will say now what I said then — a short tie must be worn with trousers that are worn higher on the waist. That is a classic feature of 1930s menswear. In my opinion, a tie hanging over the waistband looks a bit sloppy.

Not to be totally pervy, but I would make out with top guy (ha!) in a heartbeat.

On topic: my issue with pants on my waist is that I’m tall (6’5″) and am pretty much all legs. When I wear pants on my waist up that high, it looks like I’m a neck on stilts. Ideas? It sucks, because the issue of the blouse-out shirt is very real.

I agree wholeheartedly that gentlemen should wear trousers that fit correctly. That said, not all trousers fit exactly the same. The two well-turned-out chaps pictured here are wearing trousers with a rise (the measurement between the groin seam and waistband) that should be worn at or near the waist. The problem for many men who would wear such trousers incorrectly slouched about their hips seems to be that they are unused to identifying the subtleties of fit.

Choosing correctly fitting trousers requires 1) a true reckoning of one’s waist size 2) good posture and 3) an accurate appraisal of whether the cut of the trousers is suitable and flattering. Many men seem to take the attitude that “Pants is pants and I’ll buy the first ones I see in the colour I need.”

Off-the-peg trousers are mass produced in cuts and sizes that may not suit every body type. It usually takes a bit of effort in finding the right fit among the available ranges in the shops and then fine-tuning with a tailor to get a correct fit. Sadly, many men simply do not make the effort.

Those who are concerned about the rise of trousers shortening the torso must look for trousers with a shorter rise. These can be more difficult to find.

One last word about length – The gentleman in the second photo is wearing his somewhat slim trousers a bit short, with a cuff that just touches the top of the shoe. I think it looks great. He looks cool and of the moment, rather than as if he has borrowed clothes from a much shorter man or Alfalfa Schweitzer.

I think it really depends. Some people have a much greater leg length to torso length ratio. Pulling the pants up too high just accentuates the legs to the wrong effect. I also think a flat front versus a pleated front as well as gut size makes a difference as well. I personally wear mine in between.

Both gentlemen look sharp, particularly Mr Pink Shirt. I think the key is the fit of the shirt. A fitted shirt, as opposed to a ‘blousy’ shirt, looks good. Waist or hips don’t matter as much as the streamline-effect of the whole ensemble.

Way to go! Thanks for bringing this subject up. In my opinion wearing dress pants on the hips, resulting in a baggy butt, is as classy as loose cargo shorts. It is time to move on.

If you want a lower rise waist AND a tailored look, you can find it (Cucinelli or Prada for example) and still have a great trim fit. I think wearing pants too high will make you look like you have been hanging around retirement communities.

I love this blog, mate – I really do. But stick to what you’re good at and spare us the style advice – especially when your judgement’s clearly rather shakey . The fella in the second pic could give Simon Cowell a run for his money in the high strides stakes. It’s not a good look on him.

I don’t agree at all, you really have to have the right body for this, as the first guy does, plus those are great pants. The second man, however, looks way too hippy even though he is slim – a larger man would look even worse.

Blousing is more of a function of the width of a shirt. Those guys, while wearing their pants at their natural waist, are also wearing slim-cut shirts. More men should wear slim-cut shirts, but a tent of a shirt is going to be a tent of a shirt wherever your pants end up.

(That said, if you’re at or above average height, your shirt might stay tucked in better, especially in back, if your belt is higher.)

At least part of the slimming factor comes from the fact that both of these gentlemen are very, very slim. I’ve started wearing my pants higher and I do like the look, but I think there is still a place for pants that hang low.

But what about tall slim people? I’m six-foot-seven, and it’s hard enough to find clothes in the first place; clothes that sit that high up (and I agree it’s a far better look) are even few(er) and further between.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I own a Men’s Only Vintage store in Williamsburg, Brookyln (www.houndstoothnyc.com) and I’m always trying to converte those “sagging/untucked boys. It gives men a much leaner silohuette. But I don’t think guys understand that until you explain it to them. Thanks for bringing it up!

the tie clip is beautiful. oh how i love accessories. and i wholeheartedly agree with this post. younger guys especially tend to wear their pants much too low, when it clearly looks fantastic on both young men here.

i don’t mind the short(er) pants of the second, as he was very appropriately wearing loafers without socks. however, i’d love to hear opinions of the lack of pleats despite the cuff. i personally would have preferred that they weren’t cuffed, which may be why some have had a more negative reaction the lack of length…?

I knew that this post would garner a lot of comments. I totally agree with Sart. I work in corporate America (not in creative design, or emerging marketing, or technology services so it’s not ok for me to wear jeans everyday) and it’s a must that I wear my trousers about my waist. It gives a clean, sleek look that you can’t get with some of the lower rises. I have come to hate to see the wearing of Banana Republic distressed khakis and driving loafers to work (and it’s not even Friday). This is a look that we should bring back to the forefront!! Press on well-dressers!!

Oh yeah, do I have to say that I do wear my jeans with a rather low rise? Didn’t want you to think I was a geek or anything…

I’d agree if only there were pants that I could find that don’t go in(tamper) at the belt-line. medically defined the waist is in the hips not the abdomen. if your body is completely straight, hips to arms, this can work for some

I agree with Sart, both these gents look great, but where can a man find a reasonably priced pair of trousers with a high enough rise to wear at the waist? It seems most off-the-rack pants these days have a minisclue rise making pants worn at the waist look awkward. Any insight?

sarti sadly have to disagree with youwhen i look at men from the 30′s i always think “wow, those pants look so high that their torsos look short and end up looking wide waisted”plus, it’s just not a modern look. with all that fabric, we end up looking like tamales. with a lower rise, a man’s v shape is more accentuated. that all being said, it also depends on the man’s physique…and let’s get serious, fashion does not look good on a person who looks out of shape. part of fashion is to keep the body looking it’s best so that clothes can drape it to flatter the body not correct the flaws. EVERYONE needs a tailor and a gym membership!

If you’re short, then wearing your trousers at your waist will not make you look shorter because it “shortens your torso”, but makes you look taller because it “lengthens the legs.”

People always look taller with longer looking legs — what do people think the aesthetic point of pinstriped trousers, pleats and high heels are? (Not all worn at once, of course.)

If you have a belly, then you wear your trousers to cut the belly in half. NOTHING shows off a belly like wearing your trousers at your hips. Trousers at a waist disguises it, just like a jacket.

The modern uniform of jeans (on hips) and tight t-shirt stops looking particularly flattering on men when their bodies are not at their absolute prime. Jackets and trousers at the waist were developed over a century for good reasons.

Good lesson but I think as general rule,you muist dress to suit your build.My torso in relation to my legs is slightly disproportionate.I tend to wear my trousers slightly below my waist as that works for me,without looking like a teen rapper.

the barker black guy has some serious style. like bespoke punk. not too costumey though. i think that the natural waist look is fine if you’re thin, reasonably tall and are wearing fitted clothing. it’s a fine line between elegance and camel toe.

m @ 2:34:I completely disagree. “Fashion” goes way beyond narrow notions of body and body flattering. Sure, being fit is great– but I’ve seen some sexy, sexy folks who rock good clothes on a less than “perfect” bodies.

It has to do with age and posture too. Older guys who are short waisted and beginning to lose height usually look pretty bad with pants-at-waist. It emphasizes all the wrong features and makes them look older. Show me a guy in his 60′s who’s trying to look good, and I’ll show you a guy who looks better with pant’s-toward-hips.

I agree completely, pants should be on the waist, especially trousers, and jeans too. However these days most new pants,modern cuts like Prada, Gucci, Balenciaga, etc. are cut lower making it a difficult to wear them properly. The decision for guys between looking good and the unattractive, uncomfortable ball crunching difficult with todays cuts. Hugo Boss does well with its James Brown, slim, modern, inexpensive comparatilely, and enough room to wear it high without the pain. Thanks, designers here me loud and clear, more crotch, pleeeassse.

i think if the dress pants are supposed to be that way (high waist) then that should be done. Otherwise, i wont look right. But, if one wears those european brands with super low cust (which are my favortites), and have the physique to pull it off, go for it.

cheers, Gian

PS does anyone knows how i could get tickets/entrance for New York Fashion Week????any show???let me know please!it’d be awesome

I wear mostly flat front pants, and I wear a good amount of high-waisted ones too. What I find is that sitting, such as at my desk, really wrinkles/whiskers the pants, which i think you can see some of on barker number 2

I’m surprised no comments on the length of the tie on the pink-shirted guy… Is it ok for his tie to be well past his belt? I’ve always been told that the tie should come to just above the belt buckle. I’m 5’8″ and always have a bit of a hard time getting the length to work well – it usually requires a fat knot (not my preference for most collars). Thoughts?

My husband wore suits for his corporate job. Because he couldn’t afford decent new suits (and, well, he’s a bit of a rebel, too) he bought vintage and had them tailored. They sit on his waist.

60 floors worth of guys in suits and men in eleavators always singled him out for compliments. They often asked where he’d bought the suit. Secretaries smiled. Kids on schooltrips to the nearby museum often shouted out their praise.

Actually, I think that if a guy has trim abs, then wearing trousers at the hips won’t make much of a difference. In fact, if the shirt is tucked in snugly, then wearing trousers at the hips is a great way of showing off those abs.

It’s about 2 to 3 inches too long. The tie should end between the top and bottom of the belt. People are missing this bit of criticism. Whether it’s because the pants is the issue or because they find him cute and give him a pass, I cannot say.

Have you ever read American Psycho? Patrick Bateman’s character is forever giving out really detailed fashion advice and he says that the tie pin should be wore at a downward sloping 45 degree angle. This guy has is spot on!

Earlier Sart had a comment about a man “calling attention to his waist” as a man “who has a lot of confidence.”

Most people, today, associate low-rise trousers with a kind of sexual confidence. They were taught this, in part, by ad imagery.

Not everyone has the body for the look, of course.

And while that may be the “stupid” reason for the popularity of low-rise trousers, it’s not the only reason.

The principle of proportion, mentioned early in this thread, is a good one. Back in the old days, high-waisted trousers did not mess with a man’s top/bottom symmetry so much. Why? He also wore a jacket, and the jacket, when worn buttoned (as it was then), does much more to define the balance of the body. Many men also wore vests.

Sart, you can’t post pictures of the Miller brothers and then recommend that portlier men dress like Ferre. It’s not consistent. In the fat-man example, the trousers have nothing to do with the visual definition of his waist. They only drape a little better beneath his vest, and his jacket covers his rear.

That said, the higher rise should be another option. But to make it a “rule” is not wise. It is an affectation these days.

Comparisons to the old days are not persuasive, either. Back in the old days, men wore jackets with dress pants. Dress pants are more often cut like jeans because they are more often worn without a jacket.

We do not spend much time outdoors, in the elements. The vest and jacket are not likely to make a strong comeback. So the dress shirt and dress pants look will not go away. Trousers will not return to the waist, though this may become a less unusual option if we get more choices going forward. Too many people regard the look, instinctively, as affected. And on a lot of bodies, it will look affected.

These men look good because they have nice smiles and good bodies. Hot is as hot does. The trousers have little to do with it.

As a young guy, i agree with you, however, there are really nice pants that are meant for the hips. These hip pants i am talking about are not messy or rediculous looking either. They seem to have been given a bad reputation by those who wear them in a bad way. i like both looks

i agree with this only in any of the following sotuations- 1. you are overweight and wearing pleated pants. 2. even if you are not overweight wear only pleated pants at the waist. flat fronted pants are for the hips ONLY

I think pleated pants rarely look good on anyone. I definitely don’t think they look good on heavy guys – if anything, it makes them look heavier.
Pleats look best on tall, slim guys, and even on them, the flat front looks better.

It's amazing the divisiveness amonst people on this "trouser rise" topic. Also amazing is the number of people who seem absolutely positive that their opinion on the matter is the correct one. Without stating my personal opinion, I can tell you that this much is true. The "natural" waist line is preferred by most if not all of the classical menswear professionals and tailors including Alan Flusser, Bruce Boyer, Will, Manton and every tailor on Savile Row for all good reasons stated in other posts above. The "hips" waist line is favored by young progressive fashionistas and is commonly called "the fashion waist" in various style circles. It boils down to personal preference and personal style. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone. Thanks Sart. Love your blog.

Jeez Jeff, it’s not obvious at all which side you come down on, is it?
Even if what you’re saying is true, just because the establishment likes it a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the best. I’ve tried and I just can’t get over how bad the high-waist pants look.

WRONG! If I wore my pants like that I would have a short body and long legs. Clowns also dress like that. When pants are at the hips, they stay. If I pull them over that, they fall down. Not all bodies are the same. Much more comfortable at right above the hips.

Whenever I see pictures like this one – and I am talking of photos of men – I always ask myself, would that be a style for me? In this particular case I don’t know, but I think he is not. But nevertheless I agree pants, not jeans, should be worn at the waist.

Too high of a waist makes you look like a fuddy-duddy. If your pants are hiked up to high heaven, then it makes you look like you have an extremely short torso and ridiculously long legs. End of story!

Here are my thoughts and opinions.
I refuse to wear my long pants and shorts at my actual waist. I grew up wearing my pants at my hips so I am comfortable with it. Wearing them at my actual waist feels weird. I am a taller man at 6 feet 4 inches tall and if I wore my pants at my waist most would be floods on me and that looks terrible. Since I am tall my natural waist is high and that alone would make pants worn that way look terrible on me.
Wear your pants/shorts at your hips just by the right waist size to do so and you will look fine.